The Pittsburgh kick returner returned a kick for a TD yesterday just after Baltimore tied it (great defense LeBeau! Nice 74-yard, 8:01 drive you give up when you're up seven points late in the game…), and he stepped out of bounds at about the 35 yard line or something, barely (his heel). They didn't whistle the play dead and he ran all the way and everyone thought it was a TD, but it was brought back and the announcers (goddamn I-an Eagle, seriously, blech) said you can't challenge that.

It seems to me the rules on what you can and can't challenge may be the most difficult rule in the book.

The Pittsburgh kick returner returned a kick for a TD yesterday just after Baltimore tied it (great defense LeBeau! Nice 74-yard, 8:01 drive you give up when you're up seven points late in the game…), and he stepped out of bounds at about the 35 yard line or something, barely (his heel). They didn't whistle the play dead and he ran all the way and everyone thought it was a TD, but it was brought back and the announcers (goddamn I-an Eagle, seriously, blech) said you can't challenge that.

It seems to me the rules on what you can and can't challenge may be the most difficult rule in the book.

Watching the game, I heard a whistle when he stepped out, although I was thinking that i was the only one that heard it when he kept running

I don't like that there is no recourse for bad penalty calls. I get that many of them can't be reviewable because they are just judgment calls (holding, for example), but there are some (I don't have any specific examples right now, but you see phantom pass interference called occasionally - oh, and blocking in the back on punt returns) that are obvious enough that if they were reviewable they could be overturned.

I don't like that there is no recourse for bad penalty calls. I get that many of them can't be reviewable because they are just judgment calls (holding, for example), but there are some (I don't have any specific examples right now, but you see phantom pass interference called occasionally - oh, and blocking in the back on punt returns) that are obvious enough that if they were reviewable they could be overturned.

Happens so often in the NFL that it should be embarrassing. But they seem to brush it under the rub. The Pitt run back was a classic WTF. It should be review-able because it is a scoring play. I bet they change that one. Luckily it did not cost Pitt the game.

Other ones, like the game winning penalty at the Jets Pats game are equally frustrating. There have been 175 games so far including pre-season. There have been 400+ field goals. And you are telling me now that this is the first time you decide to call this obscure penalty? Whether it is correct or not, it makes the refs look really, really bad.

Happens so often in the NFL that it should be embarrassing. But they seem to brush it under the rub. The Pitt run back was a classic WTF. It should be review-able because it is a scoring play. I bet they change that one. Luckily it did not cost Pitt the game.

I didn't see the game, but if I understood Erik's desciption, then they technically blew the play dead at the point that they thought his foot went out, right? If that is true, then I understand why you can't review it, because what is there to review? The ref can come back and say, yep, I was wrong, he didn't step out, but then what? He can't very well say "And I know I blew the whistle but you shouldn't have stopped trying to tackle him just because I blew the whistle because you should know I am not very good at this ... so it's your own fault for letting up after that point (even though you know damn well that I would have thrown a flag on you for unnecessary roughness for ignoring my whistle)."

They actually have already changed the rule a little bit on that type of play. A handful of years ago, the Chargers lost a game at Denver when Jay Cutler went to throw a pass but fumbled and the Chargers picked it up and ran it back for a touchdown in the closing seconds (they were already ahead by 7 at the time). But the ref (Ed Hochuli) thought it was an incomplete pass so he blew it dead immediately. They DID review it, and it was found to be a fumble but because he blew the play dead, (technically, at the point it first hit the ground), then the Broncos got to keep possession at that spot. They got a TD shortly thereafter as time expired, and then went for 2 and got it, and won by one point.

In that offseason, they changed it such that you can account for who recovers the ball in that situation (assuming it's easy to tell) and then just discount anything after that. So if that same scenario plays out again, the Chargers get the ball at the point where they pick it up. (But they would not be able to count the TD, because who on the Broncos is going to chase the runner after he hears the whistle?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Other ones, like the game winning penalty at the Jets Pats game are equally frustrating. There have been 175 games so far including pre-season. There have been 400+ field goals. And you are telling me now that this is the first time you decide to call this obscure penalty? Whether it is correct or not, it makes the refs look really, really bad.

Totally agree. In fact, a similar scenario played out last night. They called a crucial roughing-the-passer penalty on Denver in the closing minutes that was very ticky-tack. (Yes, he gave him an unnecessary bump, but Luck turned into a bit of a soccer player there) The reason why I found it a little lame, is that there was a quite similar shove given to Peyton Manning on a previous series (also in his own endzone) that went uncalled. If you are going to call stuff like that (and the penalty on NE on the field goal) in situations that crucial, then you'd better be damn sure that you are calling it both ways. (In both cases, I would rather they not call those type of ticky-tack penalties)

I didn't see the game, but if I understood Erik's desciption, then they technically blew the play dead at the point that they thought his foot went out, right? If that is true, then I understand why you can't review it, because what is there to review?

Totally agree. In fact, a similar scenario played out last night. They called a crucial roughing-the-passer penalty on Denver in the closing minutes that was very ticky-tack. (Yes, he gave him an unnecessary bump, but Luck turned into a bit of a soccer player there) The reason why I found it a little lame, is that there was a quite similar shove given to Peyton Manning on a previous series (also in his own endzone) that went uncalled. If you are going to call stuff like that (and the penalty on NE on the field goal) in situations that crucial, then you'd better be damn sure that you are calling it both ways. (In both cases, I would rather they not call those type of ticky-tack penalties)

Read the book Scorecasting. It basically says that "home field advantage" is entirely up to the referees, with a fair amount of evidence to back that up.

Is it bad that part of me hopes the Lions don't make the playoffs in spite of Schwartz this year so that we don't have to suffer through even more years of him coaching the Lions?

It's not bad of you, but its perplexing to me. (I'm no expert on the Lions, mind you) I just looked at the stats and the Lions have made the playoffs once (2011) since 1999. Schwartz started as coach in 2009. If they made the playoffs again this year, that would be twice in 5 years for him. That seems like a pretty good record considering that in the span between Bobby Ross and Schwartz, you guys had 5 different coaches go a combined 9 years without making the playoffs.

Perhaps your expectations are a pinch high? What don't you like about him?

EDIT: Speaking of high expectations, I'm a Chargers fan and I'm still bitter about the Norv Turner era. Those lunkheads thought that Marty Schottenheimer and his 14-2 weren't good enough so, naturally, they bring in Turner and waste away nearly all of Philip Rivers' career. Thanks a lot, you stupid d-bags.

It's not bad of you, but its perplexing to me. (I'm no expert on the Lions, mind you) I just looked at the stats and the Lions have made the playoffs once (2011) since 1999. Schwartz started as coach in 2009. If they made the playoffs again this year, that would be twice in 5 years for him. That seems like a pretty good record considering that in the span between Bobby Ross and Schwartz, you guys had 5 different coaches go a combined 9 years without making the playoffs.

Perhaps your expectations are a pinch high? What don't you like about him?

EDIT: Speaking of high expectations, I'm a Chargers fan and I'm still bitter about the Norv Turner era. Those lunkheads thought that Marty Schottenheimer and his 14-2 weren't good enough so, naturally, they bring in Turner and waste away nearly all of Philip Rivers' career. Thanks a lot, you stupid d-bags.

A huge difference between the Ross/Fontes/Marriucci/Marinelli/Morninwieg (sp?)/etc days is they now have a good GM, and thus a talented team. What they unfortunately don't have, is any clock or game managemt, or discipline, both of which directly relate to coaching. Also, while he isn't the offensive coordinator, he ultimately is responsible and 727 pass attempts makes for a very one dimensional offense.

Pretty similar to the Chargers under Norv in my mind, a lot of talent being wasted by poor coaching.

A huge difference between the Ross/Fontes/Marriucci/Marinelli/Morninwieg (sp?)/etc days is they now have a good GM, and thus a talented team. What they unfortunately don't have, is any clock or game managemt, or discipline, both of which directly relate to coaching. Also, while he isn't the offensive coordinator, he ultimately is responsible and 727 pass attempts makes for a very one dimensional offense.

Pretty similar to the Chargers under Norv in my mind, a lot of talent being wasted by poor coaching.

In that case, I feel your pain. (Well, not currently as I'm still in the honeymoon phase with Mike McCoy) :)